As Senate votes on warrantless wiretapping, opponents offer fixes

Senators offer amendments to safeguard privacy, improve transparency.

With little fanfare, the United States Senate is poised to re-authorize the FISA Amendments Act, the controversial legislation that gives the federal government broad powers to intercept Americans' international communications without a warrant. The House of Representatives approved a five-year extension in September, but without Senate support, some government surveillance powers will expire at the end of the year.

The legislation originally passed in 2008. As we reported at the time, it created a new system of "authorizations" that allows senior government officials to sign off on international wiretapping schemes. The government must submit a description of its spying plans to a judge—but the government does not need to "identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property" at which the eavesdropping will occur, as it would need to in the case of a search warrant. That could allow the government to engage in dragnet surveillance without meaningful judicial oversight.

The government has been tight-lipped about whether it is actually engaging in such surveillance. Since last year, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has been pressing federal officials for details about how many Americans have been the target of surveillance under FISA authorizations. The government has refused to give even a ballpark figure, meaning we don't know if the government has spied on dozens of Americans, or millions of them.

Groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation are urging Americans to call their Senators to oppose reauthorization of the FISA amendments. But opponents, recognizing that stopping the legislation is a long shot, have also offered amendments that would strengthen Americans' privacy and bring more transparency to the government's surveillance activities.

Wyden has offered an amendment that would require the government to publicly disclose details about how many Americans have had their communications intercepted based on FISA authorizations. His fellow Oregonian Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) is offering an amendment to declassify key decisions of the secret FISA court. At least one of those rulings reportedly found that government surveillance activities during the Bush administration violated the Fourth Amendment.

On the Republican side, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has offered an amendment dubbed the "Fourth Amendment Protection Act" that would require the government to seek a warrant, as required by the Fourth Amendment, before seeking information held by a third party. The amendment would extend Fourth Amendment privacy protections to cloud e-mail providers, from whom it is currently easier to get access to someone's stored e-mail than it would be if officials wanted to search that person's home computer.

Finally, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has offered an amendment to require that the law be re-authorized again after three years; the current Senate bill would re-authorize surveillance for five years.

If the Senate adopts the language approved by the House in September, the bill can go straight to President Obama for his signature. If the Senate accepts any of the four amendments, it will need to send the legislation back to the House for another vote.

Your elected government representatives do actually care when their citizens voice opinions, and the more they hear on one side of an issue versus the other, the more likely it is they will do what you want. It doesn't even matter how persuasive your correspondence is - they just want to gauge how many people are going to be upset by a particular vote.

55 Reader Comments

Was the 4th Amendment one of the sections "accidentally" skipped when Boehner's House performed a reading of the Constitution on the House Floor? Honestly, why are liberals and conservatives, alike, not against this?

Was the 4th Amendment one of the sections "accidentally" skipped when Boehner's House performed a reading of the Constitution on the House Floor? Honestly, why are liberals and conservatives, alike, not against this?

"The government does not need to "identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property" at which the eavesdropping will occur, as it would need to in the case of a search warrant. That could allow the government to engage in dragnet surveillance without meaningful judicial oversight."

Was the 4th Amendment one of the sections "accidentally" skipped when Boehner's House performed a reading of the Constitution on the House Floor? Honestly, why are liberals and conservatives, alike, not against this?

"The government does not need to "identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property" at which the eavesdropping will occur, as it would need to in the case of a search warrant. That could allow the government to engage in dragnet surveillance without meaningful judicial oversight."

Thanks, but I read the article already, hence why I posted a comment, so there is no need to quote it. The proposed extension of this bill is what allows your quote from the article. The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizures which trumps all bills passed by Congress including the provision you highlight.

The only real question: Is capturing and recording communications of its citizens considered search and/or seizure? Because "engaging in dragnet surveillance without meaningful judicial oversight" is absolutely unreasonable.

The only real question: Is capturing and recording communications of its citizens considered search and/or seizure? Because "engaging in dragnet surveillance without meaningful judicial oversight" is absolutely unreasonable.

Yes it is considered search. Typically the government tries to get around the 4th amendment by recording conversations where one person is outside the US, and thus not subject to the 4th amendment. But such surveillance also records people speaking from the US, whom the 4th amendment protects. It's clear that the government is trying to violate the 4th amendment in spirit and just looking for a technicality to make its surveillance legal.

Was the 4th Amendment one of the sections "accidentally" skipped when Boehner's House performed a reading of the Constitution on the House Floor? Honestly, why are liberals and conservatives, alike, not against this?

Very good point. We all know they only care about the 2nd.

All that fuss they made about every bill being constitutional before being considered was the hot air everyone thought it was. Their concern over the constitution appears to have ended once they finished the reading of it that day.

Was the 4th Amendment one of the sections "accidentally" skipped when Boehner's House performed a reading of the Constitution on the House Floor? Honestly, why are liberals and conservatives, alike, not against this?

Very good point. We all know they only care about the 2nd.

It'd be nice if more of them actually cared about the 2nd, but it's all too likely to go in the bin with every other civil liberty.

This article really could have been a handful of sentences long:

Quote:

The FISA act, which allows warrantless wiretapping by the government, has been approved for extension by 5 years by the House of Representatives.

The Senate is seeing a couple of half-assed amendments , and one vaguely reasonable amendment. Some Democrat or other has offered an amendment requiring disclosure of key decisions, although still without judicial oversight. Some other Democrat has offered an amendment requiring re-authorization ever 3 years instead of 5. Some Republican has offered an amendment requiring a warrant be acquired to search third-party communications, but probably has some loophole.

Congress continues to bludgeon civil rights with one hand, while dispensing foodstuffs and entertainment tickets with the other.

Mediums are quotes as saying they have increased contact with political figures of 1,800-2,000 years ago offering suggestions involving politically-acceptable minority punching bags and exotic carnivores.

"Congress, while avoiding the issue of fixing the budget, frantically tries to pass another 5 year extension to an unconstitutional wiretapping bill."

With headlines like that, it is no surprise that the Congress approval rating is in the dumpster.

That would a headline for a tabloid.

For that matter, an American in Iran being under the suspicion of collaborating with a terrorist organization and maintaining communications with someone inside the US, a measure like this seems to be very reasonable. You don't know a priori if the person inside the US is a legal citizen, is in its house or using legal or regulated means of communication. At least, that's how i understand it

If a police officer finds in the street a stream of blood that comes directly from the house of someone, it means you just found where the 4th amendment ends.

For that matter, an American in Iran being under the suspicion of collaborating with a terrorist organization and maintaining communications with someone inside the US, a measure like this seems to be very reasonable. You don't know a priori if the person inside the US is a legal citizen, is in its house or using legal or regulated means of communication. At least, that's how i understand it

If a police officer finds in the street a stream of blood that comes directly from the house of someone, it means you just found where the 4th amendment ends.

Sorry, but so what?

The 4th amendment doesn't exist to make someone's work easier. It is about US citizens personal rights and freedoms.

And the example you have about a blood trail would fall under reasonable search, and could still require a warrant. There is a huge difference between that and blanket surveillance of all international phone calls. That would be like finding a blood trail and then without permission, secretly breaking into and searching every home in the city. And then not telling anyone, even if they ask.

There is a reason we have warrants issued by judges. And why we shouldn't have some sort of secret, unmonitored star chamber doing the approvals.

Yes, warrants can be burdensome to the government. They are supposed to be.

You are essentially making the argument that its ok to have a secretive police state with unlimited powers and no accountability for the sake of national security.

For that matter, an American in Iran being under the suspicion of collaborating with a terrorist organization and maintaining communications with someone inside the US, a measure like this seems to be very reasonable. You don't know a priori if the person inside the US is a legal citizen, is in its house or using legal or regulated means of communication. At least, that's how i understand it

If a police officer finds in the street a stream of blood that comes directly from the house of someone, it means you just found where the 4th amendment ends.

Sorry, but so what?

The 4th amendment doesn't exist to make someone's work easier. It is about US citizens personal rights and freedoms.

Neither the 4th amendment nor any of the others in the Bill of Rights is limited to US citizens. They all describe rights of "the people". This has generally been taken to cover anyone in the US - citizen, permanent resident, temporary visa holder, or even those who entered illegally or overstayed a visa. They can all speak freely, bear arms, refuse to quarter troops (never been tested), and so forth.

The 4th amendment doesn't exist to make someone's work easier. It is about US citizens personal rights and freedoms.

I agree. You should agree too that an interpretation abuse make criminal acts more easier too. This amendment implies a tradeoff.

Cheesewhiz wrote:

And the example you have about a blood trail would fall under reasonable search, and could still require a warrant.

No way. You should't take any chance.

Cheesewhiz wrote:

You are essentially making the argument that its ok to have a secretive police state with unlimited powers and no accountability for the sake of national security.

No i don't. My argument was about Americans tied with foreign terrorist organizations conspiring against the United States, from and outside the states.

Giving up one's personal liberties for the pursuit of terrorists or whatever other imagined threat has never worked out well for any country in written history. It is great that you worry about safety. However, I would rather the government have to jump through bureaucratic red tape before wiretapping me while I talk to my girlfriend who lives in Spain just because they feel like it.

Giving up one's personal liberties for the pursuit of terrorists or whatever other imagined threat has never worked out well for any country in written history. It is great that you worry about safety. However, I would rather the government have to jump through bureaucratic red tape before wiretapping me while I talk to my girlfriend who lives in Spain just because they feel like it.

I doubt that the 4th amendment can be used as an excuse for treason. I doubt that the president, the congress and the rest of the government is going to waste resources on your conversations with your girlfriend, unless your girlfriend have ties with terrorist organizations and both are conspiring against the U.S which to my own understanding is an act of treason. At this point , obviously, someone is crossing the line.

Giving up one's personal liberties for the pursuit of terrorists or whatever other imagined threat has never worked out well for any country in written history. It is great that you worry about safety. However, I would rather the government have to jump through bureaucratic red tape before wiretapping me while I talk to my girlfriend who lives in Spain just because they feel like it.

I doubt that the 4th amendment can be used as an excuse for treason. I doubt that the president, the congress and the rest of the government is going to waste resources on your conversations with your girlfriend, unless your girlfriend have ties with terrorist organizations and both are conspiring against the U.S which to my own understanding is an act of treason. At this point , obviously, someone is crossing the line.

I'm sorry, but your logic is showing a drastic lack of comprehension. First off, how can any government official who is eavesdropping on an international call know prior to the fact that it is with a "known terrorist ties" unless they've done other eavesdropping of some form? For example, if the guy wants to talk to his girlfriend in Spain, and if the girlfriend in Spain has not been to the US, then there is no way for the government to know what ties she has to any organizations. Say she has ties to some terrorist cell. How would the government ever figure this out without first spying on their conversations? It's cyclical logic.

You claim that you're not condoning a secret police-run state, but really the arguments you are making are only coming up with vague scenarios that bolster a secret police-run state.

Either you believe in protecting Constitutional and Amendment rights, or you do not. If you start putting in exceptions, clauses, loopholes, "buts", "ors", or the like, then you're not really supporting those rights. You're just trying to get the fame of supporting the rights whilst simultaneously stripping them--pretty much exactly what the government is doing.

Terrorists work by their very definition by creating terror. If we refuse to be terrified by people, then we have "won the war on terrorism". By modifying and nullifying our basic human rights laid down by the fundamental documents of this nation--which, incidentally, set our nation apart from most others in the rights we're allegedly granted--we are not fighting terrorism, we are giving into it. I value the privacy of all my fellow Americans over that of catching some phone call to a potential terrorist cell. Those are my values, and I believe that such values as that are what will allow America to be a strong nation rather than a police state.

Was the 4th Amendment one of the sections "accidentally" skipped when Boehner's House performed a reading of the Constitution on the House Floor? Honestly, why are liberals and conservatives, alike, not against this?

As an outsider, I find this one of the great ironies of America. So proud of basic, codified freedoms; so willing to abandon them at the first sign of the boogeyman.

I doubt that the 4th amendment can be used as an excuse for treason. I doubt that the president, the congress and the rest of the government is going to waste resources on your conversations with your girlfriend, unless your girlfriend have ties with terrorist organizations and both are conspiring against the U.S which to my own understanding is an act of treason. At this point , obviously, someone is crossing the line.

From a certain point of view, the authors of that document had already committed treason several years before - They overthrew the rule of one government.

"Congress, while avoiding the issue of fixing the budget, frantically tries to pass another 5 year extension to an unconstitutional wiretapping bill."

With headlines like that, it is no surprise that the Congress approval rating is in the dumpster.

That would a headline for a tabloid.

For that matter, an American in Iran being under the suspicion of collaborating with a terrorist organization and maintaining communications with someone inside the US, a measure like this seems to be very reasonable. You don't know a priori if the person inside the US is a legal citizen, is in its house or using legal or regulated means of communication. At least, that's how i understand it

If a police officer finds in the street a stream of blood that comes directly from the house of someone, it means you just found where the 4th amendment ends.

Except that "guilt by association" is insufficient grounds for a search warrant. If you have sufficient grounds for a warrant on someone, you can tap their phone and listen in on the conversation. If THIS reveals information sufficient to get a warrant on the other person in the call, then you can do the same to them. Merely calling them, however, is not probably cause against the recipient of that call (or the caller, for that matter.) The most you can use associations for is getting a list of people to look into in the first place, it is not in itself sufficient to infringe their rights.

That is to say, simply ocmmunicating with someone, even if they're in a country we consider an enemy, isn't enough to get a warrant, nor should it be. At most, it's enough to look for something to support a warrant in the first place (though even then, the government isn't supposed to be conducting such surveilance on US citizens without some REAL impetus for doing so; mere association is insufficient), but it's not enough to start searching and/or seizing my communications or property.

If it makes it easier to understand, let's go with an equally tenuous connection. One of my friends happens to be a pothead, is the fact of our friendship alone sufficient cause or reason to assume that I'm also a pothead? Better yet, my friend downloaded a movie, is the fact of our friendship alone sufficient cause or reason to assume that I also download movies? Substitute whatever you like, but at the end of the day association alone is not evidence of anything except association itself. Knowing a pothead doesn't mean I'm one too any more than knowing someone that downloads movies, or speeds on the highway, means that I do too.

ngativ wrote:

Cheesewhiz wrote:

Sorry, but so what?

The 4th amendment doesn't exist to make someone's work easier. It is about US citizens personal rights and freedoms.

I agree. You should agree too that an interpretation abuse make criminal acts more easier too. This amendment implies a tradeoff.

Assuming I'm understanding the broken English properly (apologies if it's not your first language; my German probably sounds the same), yes, it is a tradeoff. The judgement made by that ammendment, however, is that it's better for the people as a whole to be safe and secure themselves than to sacrifice that in the name of stopping crime. Martial law has an amazingly positive impact on reducing crime rates, but that doesn't make it an appealing solution to anyone except the despots running things.

ngativ wrote:

Cheesewhiz wrote:

And the example you have about a blood trail would fall under reasonable search, and could still require a warrant.

No way. You should't take any chance.

Actually, yes. The blood trail is more than sufficient probable cause for entry and to search for a source, but you would still require a warrant for much more than cursory inspection. That is, you can go in, you can make sure there are no dangers, you can make sure any people are safe / not a threat, you can deal with the body. You cannot start rifling through desk drawers or break open a safe or confiscate a computer, etc. without a warrant.

This is as it should be, otherwise any excuse would grant a blanket authorization to disregard rights. Searches must, by definition, be targeted and specific. One example might be a murder suspect's home being searched for the gun used in the killing; if they find a pound of weed in the mattress THEY CANNOT TAKE IT OR USE IT AGAINST HIM, but rather must first get the warrant ammended. That's not to say they can't stay there to prevent destruction of the evidence, call the ADA, and wait for the ammended warrant, though.

ngativ wrote:

Cheesewhiz wrote:

You are essentially making the argument that its ok to have a secretive police state with unlimited powers and no accountability for the sake of national security.

No i don't. My argument was about Americans tied with foreign terrorist organizations conspiring against the United States, from and outside the states.

Yes, you do. Your statements were not limited to terrorist organizations, conspiracies, etc. You made a blanket statement regarding contact across international borders, period. If it's contact with a specific known criminal then we have the situation I address earlier in my post regarding association; it's enough to make you look more closely at the individual, but it is not in itself sufficient cause for a search or warrant.

Cherlindrea wrote:

ngativ wrote:

Josh K wrote:

Giving up one's personal liberties for the pursuit of terrorists or whatever other imagined threat has never worked out well for any country in written history. It is great that you worry about safety. However, I would rather the government have to jump through bureaucratic red tape before wiretapping me while I talk to my girlfriend who lives in Spain just because they feel like it.

I doubt that the 4th amendment can be used as an excuse for treason. I doubt that the president, the congress and the rest of the government is going to waste resources on your conversations with your girlfriend, unless your girlfriend have ties with terrorist organizations and both are conspiring against the U.S which to my own understanding is an act of treason. At this point , obviously, someone is crossing the line.

I'm sorry, but your logic is showing a drastic lack of comprehension. First off, how can any government official who is eavesdropping on an international call know prior to the fact that it is with a "known terrorist ties" unless they've done other eavesdropping of some form? For example, if the guy wants to talk to his girlfriend in Spain, and if the girlfriend in Spain has not been to the US, then there is no way for the government to know what ties she has to any organizations. Say she has ties to some terrorist cell. How would the government ever figure this out without first spying on their conversations? It's cyclical logic.

You claim that you're not condoning a secret police-run state, but really the arguments you are making are only coming up with vague scenarios that bolster a secret police-run state.

Either you believe in protecting Constitutional and Amendment rights, or you do not. If you start putting in exceptions, clauses, loopholes, "buts", "ors", or the like, then you're not really supporting those rights. You're just trying to get the fame of supporting the rights whilst simultaneously stripping them--pretty much exactly what the government is doing.

Terrorists work by their very definition by creating terror. If we refuse to be terrified by people, then we have "won the war on terrorism". By modifying and nullifying our basic human rights laid down by the fundamental documents of this nation--which, incidentally, set our nation apart from most others in the rights we're allegedly granted--we are not fighting terrorism, we are giving into it. I value the privacy of all my fellow Americans over that of catching some phone call to a potential terrorist cell. Those are my values, and I believe that such values as that are what will allow America to be a strong nation rather than a police state.

Poe's law in action?

ChickenHawk wrote:

ngativ wrote:

Josh K wrote:

I doubt that the 4th amendment can be used as an excuse for treason. I doubt that the president, the congress and the rest of the government is going to waste resources on your conversations with your girlfriend, unless your girlfriend have ties with terrorist organizations and both are conspiring against the U.S which to my own understanding is an act of treason. At this point , obviously, someone is crossing the line.

From a certain point of view, the authors of that document had already committed treason several years before - They overthrew the rule of one government.

Fuck the treason and insurrection, it's all that wasted tea that pisses me off!

So if I decide in U.S. soil to host a VoIP server (asterisk, 3cx, free switch etc.), and I then use an encrypting/anonymizing proxy to transfer my non-U.S. traffic to a U.S. location, which I then use to link to my VoIP services which are U.S.

How do they wire-tap that service and know for certain they are international calls, and not simply calls with landed-immigrants.

Does this apply to foreign nationals who are not currently out-side of the U.S. (Example: A phone call placed from the cellular phone of Michael Westen to the U.S. based foreign ambassador for the U.A.E.?)

So if I decide in U.S. soil to host a VoIP server (asterisk, 3cx, free switch etc.), and I then use an encrypting/anonymizing proxy to transfer my non-U.S. traffic to a U.S. location, which I then use to link to my VoIP services which are U.S.

How do they wire-tap that service and know for certain they are international calls, and not simply calls with landed-immigrants.

Does this apply to foreign nationals who are not currently out-side of the U.S. (Example: A phone call placed from the cellular phone of Michael Westen to the U.S. based foreign ambassador for the U.A.E.?)

As to your hypothetical server: spyware. It's been done in the past, and it's happening more and more frequently as time goes on.

As to your call to the ambassador, presumably diplomatic immunity would still apply, so OFFICIALLY they couldn't tap a diplomat's line or the embassy, however if a random person (i.e. someone without that immunity) placed a call to the embassy there could still be a tap on the individual's line. Note also that I said "officially." Unofficially, they're almost certainly doing whatever they can to intercept diplomatic communications, as that is simply what intelligence agencies do: gather intelligence.

Either you believe in protecting Constitutional and Amendment rights, or you do not. If you start putting in exceptions, clauses, loopholes, "buts", "ors", or the like, then you're not really supporting those rights. You're just trying to get the fame of supporting the rights whilst simultaneously stripping them--pretty much exactly what the government is doing.

Terrorists work by their very definition by creating terror. If we refuse to be terrified by people, then we have "won the war on terrorism". By modifying and nullifying our basic human rights laid down by the fundamental documents of this nation--which, incidentally, set our nation apart from most others in the rights we're allegedly granted--we are not fighting terrorism, we are giving into it. I value the privacy of all my fellow Americans over that of catching some phone call to a potential terrorist cell. Those are my values, and I believe that such values as that are what will allow America to be a strong nation rather than a police state.

Quoted just because it's worth repeating.

The old sayings about, cures which are worse than the original ailment, come to mind.

Either you believe in protecting Constitutional and Amendment rights, or you do not. If you start putting in exceptions, clauses, loopholes, "buts", "ors", or the like, then you're not really supporting those rights. You're just trying to get the fame of supporting the rights whilst simultaneously stripping them--pretty much exactly what the government is doing.

Terrorists work by their very definition by creating terror. If we refuse to be terrified by people, then we have "won the war on terrorism". By modifying and nullifying our basic human rights laid down by the fundamental documents of this nation--which, incidentally, set our nation apart from most others in the rights we're allegedly granted--we are not fighting terrorism, we are giving into it. I value the privacy of all my fellow Americans over that of catching some phone call to a potential terrorist cell. Those are my values, and I believe that such values as that are what will allow America to be a strong nation rather than a police state.

Quoted just because it's worth repeating.

The old sayings about, cures which are worse than the original ailment, come to mind.

While I generally agree with the sentiment in the first paragraph, and the second is absolutely right, such a black-and-white picture is itself not wholly accurate. For example, a warrant in itself is, by definition, an exception to the right to privacy in your person and effects. It's making the value-judgement that the abridging of that right and freedom is warranted in the face of a given threat or the persuit of justice. The issue isn't the abridgement of those rights, but rather, the standards applied for granting it. To use an earlier example (and attempt to get something useful from the nutjob's "contributions" to the thread), I don't think anyone would disagree that seeing a trail of blood is a legitimate and justifiable reason to consider the public good of greater importance than your personal privacy, and allow a police officer to investigate. Conversely, most reasonable individuals would agree that association alone is insufficient to warrant an invasion of that privacy, as is the case with the FISA orders and why reasonable individuals oppose them.

That's the question that needs to be asked: at what point does the public good outweigh personal privacy? The test should be stringent, and the standards high, as is the case with a warrant. The problem with recent developments, such as FISA, is that they simply don't ask that question or try to answer it in good faith. Instead they're fishing expeditions in the alleged name of the public good, but without any real oversight, nor does it really have anything substantial to justify it.

Your elected government representatives do actually care when their citizens voice opinions, and the more they hear on one side of an issue versus the other, the more likely it is they will do what you want. It doesn't even matter how persuasive your correspondence is - they just want to gauge how many people are going to be upset by a particular vote.

Why on earth would a legislature extend a government's powers without having any idea how, or how often, those powers have been used?

This is just crazy - nobody could say they had done their job properly by signing off on something without a little bit of information about what they are approving. You would expect a company CEO to be sacked for such a lackadaisical approach - "Yes, I approved that expenditure. No, I didn't ask how much it would cost".

Why on earth would a legislature extend a government's powers without having any idea how, or how often, those powers have been used?

This is just crazy - nobody could say they had done their job properly by signing off on something without a little bit of information about what they are approving. You would expect a company CEO to be sacked for such a lackadaisical approach - "Yes, I approved that expenditure. No, I didn't ask how much it would cost".

I imagine there are some members of the intelligence committee, etc. that have some knowledge of what is going on, but nothing they will discuss publicly.

Again, better to post a letter/email to your senator than to the Ars forum---.

Why on earth would a legislature extend a government's powers without having any idea how, or how often, those powers have been used?

This is just crazy - nobody could say they had done their job properly by signing off on something without a little bit of information about what they are approving. You would expect a company CEO to be sacked for such a lackadaisical approach - "Yes, I approved that expenditure. No, I didn't ask how much it would cost".

Not all of them are in the dark. The security committee has access to the unredacted information with regard to number of request, targets, actions resulting from them, etc. These members speak to the extent they can to the rest and the rest must make the judgement whether to trust them and sign based on their claims. Don't you love due process being classified?

This is the reason that Wyden and a few others have been as vague as they have on the subject. They're not ALLOWED to give exact details, they can only allude to the abuse, as they were quoted doing many times, including previous articles here on Ars on the topic. I can't remember the exact article or I would search for and link it, but one had them basically saying "yes, these powers are being actively abused on a massive scale" without actually saying it outright, because doing so would be illegal since it's classified.

Except that "guilt by association" is insufficient grounds for a search warrant.

This is not about if "guilt by association is insufficient grounds for a search warrant" or not, because you don't need any kind of guilt argument for anything . You just made up a fake argument that i never said and from there you just constructed a dummy conclusion that i never meant to say neither .

Either you believe in protecting Constitutional and Amendment rights, or you do not. If you start putting in exceptions, clauses, loopholes, "buts", "ors", or the like, then you're not really supporting those rights. You're just trying to get the fame of supporting the rights whilst simultaneously stripping them--pretty much exactly what the government is doing.

Terrorists work by their very definition by creating terror. If we refuse to be terrified by people, then we have "won the war on terrorism". By modifying and nullifying our basic human rights laid down by the fundamental documents of this nation--which, incidentally, set our nation apart from most others in the rights we're allegedly granted--we are not fighting terrorism, we are giving into it. I value the privacy of all my fellow Americans over that of catching some phone call to a potential terrorist cell. Those are my values, and I believe that such values as that are what will allow America to be a strong nation rather than a police state.

Quoted just because it's worth repeating.

The old sayings about, cures which are worse than the original ailment, come to mind.

While I generally agree with the sentiment in the first paragraph, and the second is absolutely right, such a black-and-white picture is itself not wholly accurate. For example, a warrant in itself is, by definition, an exception to the right to privacy in your person and effects. It's making the value-judgement that the abridging of that right and freedom is warranted in the face of a given threat or the persuit of justice. The issue isn't the abridgement of those rights, but rather, the standards applied for granting it. To use an earlier example (and attempt to get something useful from the nutjob's "contributions" to the thread), I don't think anyone would disagree that seeing a trail of blood is a legitimate and justifiable reason to consider the public good of greater importance than your personal privacy, and allow a police officer to investigate. Conversely, most reasonable individuals would agree that association alone is insufficient to warrant an invasion of that privacy, as is the case with the FISA orders and why reasonable individuals oppose them.

That's the question that needs to be asked: at what point does the public good outweigh personal privacy? The test should be stringent, and the standards high, as is the case with a warrant. The problem with recent developments, such as FISA, is that they simply don't ask that question or try to answer it in good faith. Instead they're fishing expeditions in the alleged name of the public good, but without any real oversight, nor does it really have anything substantial to justify it.

Exactly. Sometime the difference between a cure that ameliorates the original ailment, and one that's worse than the original ailment, is how strong a treatment is administered.

One of those old sayings I referred to is that administration and dosage makes the difference between a medicine and a poison.

Except that "guilt by association" is insufficient grounds for a search warrant.

This is not about if "guilt by association is insufficient grounds for a search warrant" or not, because you don't need any kind of guilt argument for anything . You just made up a fake argument that i never said and from there you just constructed a dummy conclusion that i never meant to say neither .

On the contrary, that guilt by association is the EXACT reasoning that was present in your posts. You argued that contact with someone was sufficient grounds to violate their privacy, the very definition of guilt by association. As far as what you meant to say or not, that's not really relevant; what you DID say is what's relevant. You're certainly welcome to rephrase what you claim to really mean, but your posts to date speak for themselves and except for some poor English in a couple, they are far from unclear.

Except that "guilt by association" is insufficient grounds for a search warrant.

This is not about if "guilt by association is insufficient grounds for a search warrant" or not, because you don't need any kind of guilt argument for anything . You just made up a fake argument that i never said and from there you just constructed a dummy conclusion that i never meant to say neither .

On the contrary, that guilt by association is the EXACT reasoning that was present in your posts. You argued that contact with someone was sufficient grounds to violate their privacy, the very definition of guilt by association. As far as what you meant to say or not, that's not really relevant; what you DID say is what's relevant. You're certainly welcome to rephrase what you claim to really mean, but your posts to date speak for themselves and except for some poor English in a couple, they are far from unclear.

Your elected government representatives do actually care when their citizens voice opinions, and the more they hear on one side of an issue versus the other, the more likely it is they will do what you want. It doesn't even matter how persuasive your correspondence is - they just want to gauge how many people are going to be upset by a particular vote.

I cannot agree enough. Thanks for this. =)

Here's mine: (I'm from VA)

"To: The Honorable Jimm Webb

Dear Senator Webb,

I have read recently that the FISA amendments are up for extension. These amendments, along with other "Patriot Act" provisions, have caused me great concern in the past several years.

As a computer security analyst for DoD, I am constantly engaged with threats to our country's and citizens information and dealings, and the urgent need to keep this information private from outside actors. Contrary to arguments that "only bad people need privacy", we both know very well that abuse of privacy is essential to a safe environment, protecting our dealings and interactions whatever they may be, free of judgement, criticism, or abuse.

Just as we must protect the privacy and security of our Government to conduct its dealings with privacy and respect, so must the Government respect the privacy and dealings of its citizens.

There are times, of course, when the need to infringe on others privacy is necessary for our safety. Our founders knew this, but also knew the potential for abuse, and as such, set up a powerful and independent court to balance people's rights against the need for security. I am proud to say that it has, and continues to work extraordinarily well.

However, the Patriot Act and FISA amendments were a step in the wrong direction, and sacrificed too much in the name of security. Residual risk that should have been shoulders by citizens was instead sought to be reduced further by erosion of personal liberties. This is no small matter. We cannot accept constant surveillance as the status quo, no matter the threat poised by outsiders. Otherwise, we can no longer claim to be the land of liberty.

There is still hope for balance. There are a number of proposals before the floor in increase transparency, accountability, and necessity in these wiretaps and data requests for the FISA Amendments. I hope that you and Senator Warner will help support these and ensure we continue to uphold our rights even as we adapt to changing threats.

Giving up one's personal liberties for the pursuit of terrorists or whatever other imagined threat has never worked out well for any country in written history. It is great that you worry about safety. However, I would rather the government have to jump through bureaucratic red tape before wiretapping me while I talk to my girlfriend who lives in Spain just because they feel like it.

I doubt that the 4th amendment can be used as an excuse for treason. I doubt that the president, the congress and the rest of the government is going to waste resources on your conversations with your girlfriend, unless your girlfriend have ties with terrorist organizations and both are conspiring against the U.S which to my own understanding is an act of treason. At this point , obviously, someone is crossing the line.

I'm sorry, but your logic is showing a drastic lack of comprehension. First off, how can any government official who is eavesdropping on an international call know prior to the fact that it is with a "known terrorist ties" unless they've done other eavesdropping of some form? For example, if the guy wants to talk to his girlfriend in Spain, and if the girlfriend in Spain has not been to the US, then there is no way for the government to know what ties she has to any organizations. Say she has ties to some terrorist cell. How would the government ever figure this out without first spying on their conversations? It's cyclical logic.

You claim that you're not condoning a secret police-run state, but really the arguments you are making are only coming up with vague scenarios that bolster a secret police-run state.

Either you believe in protecting Constitutional and Amendment rights, or you do not. If you start putting in exceptions, clauses, loopholes, "buts", "ors", or the like, then you're not really supporting those rights. You're just trying to get the fame of supporting the rights whilst simultaneously stripping them--pretty much exactly what the government is doing.

Terrorists work by their very definition by creating terror. If we refuse to be terrified by people, then we have "won the war on terrorism". By modifying and nullifying our basic human rights laid down by the fundamental documents of this nation--which, incidentally, set our nation apart from most others in the rights we're allegedly granted--we are not fighting terrorism, we are giving into it. I value the privacy of all my fellow Americans over that of catching some phone call to a potential terrorist cell. Those are my values, and I believe that such values as that are what will allow America to be a strong nation rather than a police state.

Just wanted to clear up something, we are not "Granted" rights by the Constitution. Our rights are inherent the Constitutional protections are supposed to limit government infringement.

I'm a little shocked that there hasn't been more commentary about the fact that the FISA court apparently found the Bush era surveillance to violate the 4th amendment. The one small kernel of hope that I had about these programs was that there was at least some level of oversight via the FISA court, but to hear that they issued a judgment that said it was illegal and it hasn't gotten out or shut down the programs? That's a straight up tragedy. It means that we've allowed the national security apparatus to completely overrun our system of checks and balances.

Giving up one's personal liberties for the pursuit of terrorists or whatever other imagined threat has never worked out well for any country in written history. It is great that you worry about safety. However, I would rather the government have to jump through bureaucratic red tape before wiretapping me while I talk to my girlfriend who lives in Spain just because they feel like it.

I doubt that the 4th amendment can be used as an excuse for treason. I doubt that the president, the congress and the rest of the government is going to waste resources on your conversations with your girlfriend, unless your girlfriend have ties with terrorist organizations and both are conspiring against the U.S which to my own understanding is an act of treason. At this point , obviously, someone is crossing the line.

I'm sorry, but your logic is showing a drastic lack of comprehension. First off, how can any government official who is eavesdropping on an international call know prior to the fact that it is with a "known terrorist ties" unless they've done other eavesdropping of some form? For example, if the guy wants to talk to his girlfriend in Spain, and if the girlfriend in Spain has not been to the US, then there is no way for the government to know what ties she has to any organizations. Say she has ties to some terrorist cell. How would the government ever figure this out without first spying on their conversations? It's cyclical logic.

You claim that you're not condoning a secret police-run state, but really the arguments you are making are only coming up with vague scenarios that bolster a secret police-run state.

Either you believe in protecting Constitutional and Amendment rights, or you do not. If you start putting in exceptions, clauses, loopholes, "buts", "ors", or the like, then you're not really supporting those rights. You're just trying to get the fame of supporting the rights whilst simultaneously stripping them--pretty much exactly what the government is doing.

Terrorists work by their very definition by creating terror. If we refuse to be terrified by people, then we have "won the war on terrorism". By modifying and nullifying our basic human rights laid down by the fundamental documents of this nation--which, incidentally, set our nation apart from most others in the rights we're allegedly granted--we are not fighting terrorism, we are giving into it. I value the privacy of all my fellow Americans over that of catching some phone call to a potential terrorist cell. Those are my values, and I believe that such values as that are what will allow America to be a strong nation rather than a police state.

Just wanted to clear up something, we are not "Granted" rights by the Constitution. Our rights are inherent the Constitutional protections are supposed to limit government infringement.

You're moving into the realm of philosophy now, instead of hard facts and law. It's all well and good to wax poetic about how rights are innate, inalienable, etc., but at the end of the day that's all philosophy and what what really matters is what's in writing and the spirit and intent behind that writing. As you say, is to limit the government infringing on those rights, but trying to quibble over "granted" rights, vs "enumerated," or "protections" is semantics and philosophy. Look to what is written, why it was written, and make a best-effort attempt based on phrasing and context to figure out the spirit and intent of what was written; because if it's not written, then it doesn't really enter into things.

The government must submit a description of its spying plans to a judge—but the government does not need to "identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property" at which the eavesdropping will occur, as it would need to in the case of a search warrant. That could allow the government to engage in dragnet surveillance without meaningful judicial oversight.

This is because of how modern communication networks work. Suppose you want to monitor communications between a suspect email account that you received a tip or complaint about and some unknown persons who operate computers in Karachi. There is no telling what the routing of messages may be beforehand and you can't identify every possible routing on a warrant because there are too many. You also can't identify every possible point of origination because the suspect could use any computer in a public library, attach to any public or open wi-fi network, plug into any ethernet jack, etc. The email account is the focus of your investigation, and it may lead you to other email accounts or a phone account because it's accessed from a common computer.

I think there are only three options:1. Permit warrants that use alternate identifying information such as cell phone numbers, internet account IDs and the like but don't tie to specific equipment and locations.2. Don't require any kind of oversight at all.3. Give up on trying to monitor any modern electronic communications at all even when you have probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed.

The government must submit a description of its spying plans to a judge—but the government does not need to "identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property" at which the eavesdropping will occur, as it would need to in the case of a search warrant. That could allow the government to engage in dragnet surveillance without meaningful judicial oversight.

This is because of how modern communication networks work. Suppose you want to monitor communications between a suspect email account that you received a tip or complaint about and some unknown persons who operate computers in Karachi. There is no telling what the routing of messages may be beforehand and you can't identify every possible routing on a warrant because there are too many. You also can't identify every possible point of origination because the suspect could use any computer in a public library, attach to any public or open wi-fi network, plug into any ethernet jack, etc. The email account is the focus of your investigation, and it may lead you to other email accounts or a phone account because it's accessed from a common computer.

I think there are only three options:1. Permit warrants that use alternate identifying information such as cell phone numbers, internet account IDs and the like but don't tie to specific equipment and locations.2. Don't require any kind of oversight at all.3. Give up on trying to monitor any modern electronic communications at all even when you have probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed.

Except all of that is wrong. Want to monitor his email? Contact his provider (or his hosting vendor) with the warrant telling them to provide access. Same thing for (most) VoIP services (and why the government is so happy MSFT bought Skype, so Skype can't refuse to destroy its security with a back door now).

Substitute the computer examples with payphones and telegrams, are those arguments to completely remove the requirement for specificity in a warrant? Absolutely not. Want to know why? Because the law requires that you know what you're looking for and have a fairly good idea of where to look; fishing expeditions like you seem to be implying are NECESSARY, are actually quite illegal.

Just wanted to clear up something, we are not "Granted" rights by the Constitution. Our rights are inherent the Constitutional protections are supposed to limit government infringement.

If rights were inherent, everybody across all time and space would have the same rights and we observe that this has not been the case.

Rights are freedoms that people have agreed to abide and will enforce if necessary. Some of these rights are legal rights, such as those stated in the Constitution. There are contractual rights as well and they may be either written or unwritten, though the latter are harder to use in court.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.